SynthesisCurrent environmental health reports2015
Use of Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis in Environmental Health Epidemiology: a Systematic Review and Comparison with Guidelines.
Synthesis in Current environmental health reports, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
11 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 25 citations in OpenAlex.
- Association between Exposure toEnvironmental health perspectives · 2017Pooled it
- Short-term effects of fine particulate matter pollution on daily health events in Latin America: a systematic review and meta-analysis.International journal of public health · 2017Pooled it
- Systems for rating bodies of evidence used in systematic reviews of air pollution exposure and reproductive and children's health: a methodological survey.Environmental health : a global access science source · 2024Review
- Methodological and reporting quality of systematic reviews on health effects of air pollutants were higher than extreme temperatures: a comparative study.BMC public health · 2023Article
- Biological plausibility in environmental health systematic reviews: a GRADE concept paper.Environment international · 2022Article
- Article
- Intrauterine exposure to perfluorinated compounds and overweight at age 4: A case-control study.PloS one · 2020Article
- Practical recommendations to conduct a neuroimaging meta-analysis for neuropsychiatric disorders.Human brain mapping · 2019Review
- Blue-collar work and women's health: A systematic review of the evidence from 1990 to 2015.SSM - population health · 2018Article
- Inadequate diversity of information resources searched in US-affiliated systematic reviews and meta-analyses: 2005-2016.Journal of clinical epidemiology · 2018Article
- Environmental Chemical Assessment in Clinical Practice: Unveiling the Elephant in the Room.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2016Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Systematic review (SR) and meta-analysis (MA) have potential to contribute substantially to environmental health (EH) risk assessment and policy-making, provided study questions are clear and methods sound. We undertook a systematic review of the published epidemiological literature for studies using both SR and MA examining associations between chronic low-dose chemical exposures and adverse health outcomes in general populations and compared actual methods and reporting with a checklist based on available published guidelines. We identified 48 EH SRMAs meeting these criteria. Associations were mainly positive and statistically significant, often involving large populations. A majority of studies followed most general SRMA guidance, although we identified weaknesses in problem formulation, study search, selection and data extraction, and integrating policy implications. Fewer studies followed EH-specific SRMA recommendations, particularly regarding exposure heterogeneity and other risks of bias. Development and adoption of EH-specific SRMA guidelines would contribute to strengthening these tools for public health decision-making.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.